Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 14.2
Emancipatory versus instrumental learning
Instrumental
Emancipatory
Nature of knowledge
Static, finished (scientifically)
agreed upon, universal
Dynamic, under construction,
contested, contextual
Process of learning
Transmission, instruction
Transformation, co-creation
Role of learner
Consumer/user of knowledge
Producer/user of knowledge
Role of initiator
Instructor
Facilitator
Origin of learning goals
Pre- and expert determined
from the outside
Self-determined from within
Object of learning
Tailor made for specific target
groups
Multiple stakeholders in an
integrative setting
nised social issues that are taken up by leading social certification organisations (see
Initiatives
defining
and
addressing
social
justice
in
the
organic
sector
). This response is widely practiced.
Another response to the many perspectives on social responsibility regarding organic agri-
culture is to acknowledge that working towards social responsibility involves questions regard-
ing values, ethics, justice and equity. Pathways towards social responsibility are unlikely to
develop without friction, controversy and conf lict. This view emphasises that we live in plural-
istic societies, characterised by multiple participants with divergent interests, values, perspec-
tives and constructions of reality. Furthermore, working towards social responsibility demands
more than universally applicable recipes for social responsibility. Governments cannot rely on
the exclusive use of legislation (Table 14.1) to enforce social responsibility. Most countries have
basic laws regarding wages, working hours and child labour among others, but this does not
necessarily mean they are adhered to. Standard-setting bodies cannot depend only on economic
instruments (e.g. premium prices) to stimulate the whole supply chain to act in a socially
responsible manner. Genuine social responsibility develops from within and is anchored in
values and a deep conviction of what is considered 'right' and 'just' within a given subculture.
The question then becomes more complex as to how can internationally recognised standards
integrate with divergent local values (and
vice
versa
). International standards, although they
are more f flexible than laws, are less dynamic than local standards.
Innovation and change in land use, production, processing and consumption can be seen
as a result of the learning of individuals and groups active in the agrifood chain (see Figure
14.1 as to the relationship between society and the organic sector). Likewise, learning can
generate innovation, change and development of social responsibility in (organic) agriculture.
There are many ways to conceptualise the relationship between learning and social responsi-
bility, but for this Chapter we address two possibilities: instrumental learning and emancipa-
tory or social learning. The main differences between instrumental and emancipatory learning
lie in: the nature of knowledge, the process of learning, the role of the various stakeholders in
learning, the origin of the goals that are being pursued and the object of learning (Table 14.2).
When exploring social responsibility by using this dichotomy, again two pictures emerge:
learning
for
social responsibility (instrumental) and learning
towards
social responsibility
(emancipatory).
Learning for social responsibility
The 'for' suggests that there is something known and agreed upon when it comes to social
responsibility in organic farming. Indeed, there are legal and regulatory frameworks within
which organic agriculture operates. As well as IFOAM's social standards and private certifica-
tion schemes, the Charter for Organic Trade and the ILO guidelines among others address